This
matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment
by Defendant MINACT, Inc. (Doc. No. 51.) For the reasons set
forth below, the Court grants the motion.

BACKGROUND

On
January 3, 2013, Plaintiff Roy Warmbold began working for
Defendant as a Security Officer at the Hubert H. Humphrey Job
Corps Center (the “Center”) in St. Paul,
Minnesota. (Doc. No. 56 (“Goldsmith Aff.”) ¶
2, Ex. A (“Warmbold Dep.”) at 68:21-69:2,
73:24-74:6, 80:3-11.) Job Corps Centers are federally
regulated facilities that provide education and training
services to help disadvantaged young adults secure
employment. (Goldsmith Aff. ¶ 2, Ex. B (“Ealy
Dep.”) at 10:8-11, 29:23-30:2; Warmbold Dep. at
77:3-7.) Defendant is a private government contractor that
operates Job Corps Centers in various states across the
country. (Ealy Dep. at 10:3-6, 12-15.) Defendant operated the
Center at all relevant times. (Id. at 10:16-11:2.)
Plaintiff's role included conducting investigations,
preparing detailed and accurate reports of incidents, and
reporting violations of the law.[1] (Warmbold Dep. at
82:23-83:13 & Ex. 9.) Plaintiff participated in training
and education specific to conducting searches, reporting to
the St. Paul Police Department (“SPPD”), and the
Center's active shooter policy. (Id. at 97:1-22,
99:21-100:4, 202:9-203:7.)

After
midnight on October 16, 2015, Plaintiff and fellow Security
Officer Charles Ammons responded to an incident involving
suspected drug use by a student. (Id. at
118:17-119:3; Doc. No. 67 (“Frank Decl.”) ¶
3, Ex. 3.) It had been reported that a student (the
“Student”) appeared to be under the influence,
and that the Student's room smelled like what was
believed to be marijuana smoke. (Id.) Plaintiff and
Ammons arrived and conducted a visual search of the room
(“Search One”). (Warmbold Dep. at 120:13-121:1,
292:11-14.) During the search, Plaintiff noted an
unidentifiable smell and observed a cigar wrapper on the
floor, but did not find any marijuana. (Id. at
119:3-5, 121:2-5.) Center Director Debbie Hoppe testified
that a Residential Advisor (“RA”) informed her of
the situation, and Hoppe verbally authorized a targeted
search of the Student's room and person. (Goldsmith Aff.
¶ 2, Ex. C (“Hoppe Dep.”) at 8:2-6,
62:20-64:21, 65:21-66:9.) Plaintiff stated that he was never
instructed to conduct a targeted search, and that neither he
nor Ammons sought permission to conduct one.[2](Warmbold Dep. at
292:24-293:14.)

At
around 7:00 a.m. on October 16, 2015, Plaintiff was informed
of a situation on Campus involving a student with a gun-the
Student involved in the prior incident. (Doc. No. 67
(“Frank Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. 4 (“Warmbold
Statement”) & Ex. 7.) Ammons told Plaintiff that an
RA had observed a gun in the Student's room, and Ammons
instructed Plaintiff to call 911. (Warmbold Dep. at
131:11-132:4; Frank Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 6.) According to
Plaintiff, he immediately proceeded toward Building 6, where
the Student's room was located. On the way, Plaintiff
passed RA Amidu Oduloye, who also instructed Plaintiff to
call the police. (Warmbold Dep. at 132:5-133:24; Warmbold
Statement.) Plaintiff called 911 as he headed toward Building
6, and he remained on the phone until police arrived.
(Warmbold Dep. at 136:5-137:16, 140:16-20; Frank Decl. ¶
3, Exs. 20 & 21.) Plaintiff then greeted the officers and
escorted them to Building 6. (Frank Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 10.)

Hoppe
testified that around this time she learned there was a gun
in Building 6. Hoppe asserts that shortly after, she
encountered Plaintiff in a stairwell as she was exiting
Building 1 which is on the opposite side of Campus from
Building 6. (Hoppe Dep. at 84:10-15, Ex. 22 (“Hoppe
Statement”); see also Frank Decl. ¶ 3,
Ex. 2 (“Campus Map”).) According to Hoppe, she
asked Plaintiff to accompany her, but he refused, allegedly
stating that he would not go where there was a gun. (Hoppe
Dep. at 84:21-25; Hoppe Statement.)

Following
the Student's arrest, Hoppe convened Center staff and
students to explain the events that had transpired. (Hoppe
Dep. at 75:12-16, 89:10-24.) According to Plaintiff, Hoppe
singled him out at the assembly, stating that, “Officer
Roy did what he was supposed to do. . . . He did the right
thing.” (Warmbold Dep. at 152:15-153:5.) Hoppe, on the
other hand, testified that she praised the residential and
security staff, collectively, for getting the police there so
quickly. (Hoppe Dep. at 90:5-11.) According to Hoppe, she did
not have enough information at that time to know who to
single out. (Id. at 90:16-91:4.)

Sometime
after the assembly that day, Hoppe asked Security to check in
and around the Student's room to see if the gun had been
discharged on Center property. (Id. at 93:5-8,
96:21-24.) Plaintiff and RA Bennedict Slobert returned to the
room to investigate the area (“Search Two”).
(Warmbold Dep. at 154:7-155:24; Warmbold Statement.)
Plaintiff testified that he found a bullet hole on the inside
of the solid-wood door that had not gone all the way through.
(Warmbold Dep. at 157:5-159:7.) He reported his findings to
Hoppe. (Id.) Plaintiff then completed an incident
report and provided copies to Hoppe and his supervisor.
(Id. at 160:6-161:7.) The report stated that
Plaintiff was the one who called 911 and referenced both
Ammons's and Oduloye's directions to call the police.
(Frank Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 7.)

Later
on October 16, 2015, Hoppe contacted Human Resources Manager
Maranda Williams and requested that Plaintiff be relieved of
duty. (Goldsmith Aff. ¶ 2, Ex. D (“Williams
Dep.”) at 12:23-13:1, 58:24-59:2, 63:9-15.) Hoppe
ultimately provided three reasons for requesting
Plaintiff's suspension: (1) Plaintiff's inadequate
Search One of the Student's room and person; (2)
Plaintiff's refusal to accompany Hoppe and asserting that
he would not go where a gun was; and (3) Plaintiff had
provided false information regarding the bullet hole, which
she believed had, in fact, gone through both sides of the
door.[3] (Frank Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 13.) On October
17, 2015, Williams called Plaintiff to inform him that he was
officially relieved of his duties as a Security Officer,
pending investigation and without pay. (Warmbold Dep. at
173:19-174:4; Frank Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 12.)

Over
the next few weeks, Williams worked with Vice President of
Human Resources Kabah Ealy to collect and review additional
information regarding the incidents in question.
(See Ealy Dep. at 9:16-22; 54:2-17; 59:24-61:5;
73:25-75:17 & Ex. 15; see also Williams Dep. at
67:4-77:20.) Ealy's investigation entailed reviewing
written statements, the police report, and MINACT's
search policy. (Id.) After initial review, Ealy
determined that Hoppe's reasons did not justify
suspension. (Frank Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 14.) Ealy then sought
input from other employees, including one of Defendant's
Vice Presidents of Operations, to gain a better understanding
of the search policy and Plaintiff's conduct. (Ealy Dep.
at 75:11-17, 77:5-80:21.) Upon review of such information,
Ealy concluded that all of Plaintiff's actions that day,
when looked at together, justified termination. (Id.
at 79:4-10.) On November 5, 2015, Defendant decided to
terminate Plaintiff's employment effective November 6,
2015.[4] (Id., Ex. 14.) According to the
termination letter, Defendant's decision resulted from
Plaintiff's “violation of MINACT Policy: 880:3 #1
Failure to follow supervisor's instructions, perform
assigned work or otherwise comply with applicable MINACT,
Inc. or facility written policy; failure to follow proper
procedures for dorm search, and [his] inability to perform
[his] role as Security Officer.” (Id.)

At the
time of the October 16, 2015 incidents, MINACT was under a
short-term contract to operate the Job Corps Center which was
under consideration for renewal. (Hoppe Dep. at 69:10-70:17.)
Hoppe began her role as Center Director in August 2015, and
she was aware that MINACT was under scrutiny for its failure
to meet expectations regarding the Center's operation.
(Id. at 69:10-72:13.) In August 2015, a new Active
Shooter Policy had been issued, and Hoppe had failed to
implement this policy by the time the October 16, 2015
incidents took place. (Id. at 47:9-52:2.) Hoppe
admitted that she was embarrassed by this failure and
explained that she was to blame for the incidents.
(Id. at 53:10-21, 124:7-8.) MINACT ultimately lost
the contract to operate the Job Corps Center, resulting in
Hoppe losing her job at the end of February 2016.
(Id. at 8:13-18, 124:9-12.) Hoppe believed the
October 2015 incident “was a big part of the reason
why” MINACT lost its contract. (Id. at
124:10-12.)

Plaintiff
commenced this action in Ramsey County, Minnesota District
Court in February 2016. (Doc. No. 1-1
(“Compl.”).) The Complaint alleges a single claim
for unlawful retaliation under the Minnesota Whistleblower
Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.932 (the “MWA”).
(Compl. ¶¶ 50-55.) Defendant removed the case to
this Court on March 3, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) On March 9, 2017,
Defendant filed the Motion for Summary Judgment currently
before the Court. (Doc. No. 51.) Plaintiff opposes the
motion. (Doc. No. 66.)

DISCUSSION

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I.
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.